Spontaneous Creation of the Universe From Nothing

[redbaron]

Available for public download.

Full study here.

Basically attempts to prove mathematically that the quantum potential of a virtual particle within vacuum is infinite, thereby allowing for exponential expansion from a single point (bubble). If true (as is posited within the study) then the spontaneous and irreversible creation of the universe from nothing is plausible (if not likely).

The researchers conclude at the end of the study that they have indeed demonstrated this point in a mathematical capacity.

 

[Absurdity]

Heresy!

 

[Black Rose]

With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created from nothing, where "nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time [6], and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally

In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

 

[OrLevitate]

Kind of a misnomer, "nothing", isn't it? Really interesting and I love splashing about in the tub being a contrarian.

 

[Cognisant]

In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

This "ideal" reality sure as hell isn't mine.

 

[redbaron]

Kind of a misnomer, "nothing", isn't it? Really interesting and I love splashing about in the tub being a contrarian.

Depends on how you define nothing.

Within the context of the study it constitutes no space, no time, no matter and no pre-existing laws of physics. I think that's a pretty good approximation of nothing.

 

[OrLevitate]

But nothing is stil SOMETHING, right?

Spoiler

If the nothingness described is metaphysical, what are your thoughts on the metametaphysical?


The researchers are Chinese, I don't know if I can trust them.

 

[Cæilon]

But nothing is stil SOMETHING, right?

Spoiler

If the nothingness described is metaphysical, what are your thoughts on the metametaphysical?


The researchers are Chinese, I don't know if I can trust them.

The concept of nothing is something. It is the way we describe nothing; however, that does not mean that nothing is something.

You could argue in circles that you can't define what isn't, but that is due to the limits of our communication.

 

[redbaron]

In any case, if the universe is the result of this type of spontaneous creation - it follows from probablistic (as opposed to deterministic) parameters. In a universe spawned spontaneously from probabilistic parameters, you'd expect that so too do all its interactions and "laws of physics" arise in the same way.

It makes this hypothesis one of the few explanations that can provide some insights as to why there's such a difference in the strength of forces (gravity, strong force, weak force etc.) among other things, like why electrons would be so much smaller than protons - because they're the product of a set of probabilistic potentialities with infinite potential for variation. In that context you'd expect exactly what we see in the universe today:

A seemingly random collection of forces with varying strengths, causing a vast assortment of matter to colesce according to such forces, within a universe that appears to expand exponentially (with potentiality for infinite expansion) the further the observation point from the observed object becomes.

So it's pretty damn interesting to contemplate. Even if as yet it's only a plausibility, it's one that would be quite possible to make a compelling case for its validity.

 

[Belak]

We can learn about these things, but we can't be completely sure they're true right now.

It's cool to contemplate these things and try to prove them, but we are putting all of our faith in the experts. We can't actually prove that our universe spontaneously appeared and expanded in just the right way to house intelligent life. No matter how probable it is, it is still just a theory.

I don't have many problems with the theory(I'm Christian), just, I think people automatically accept it as truth before learning about it themselves.

On the other hand, it's fun to learn about. A cool book to read that has to do with it is, Steven Hawking's The Grand Design.

 

[Jennywocky]

We can learn about these things, but we can't be completely sure they're true right now.

It's cool to contemplate these things and try to prove them, but we are putting all of our faith in the experts. We can't actually prove that our universe spontaneously appeared and expanded in just the right way to house intelligent life. No matter how probable it is, it is still just a theory.

Everything in life is a theory by that definition. Even that I assume that I'm actually responding to another human being with this post is just a "theory" by that definition.

But the word "theory" isn't defined the same in the English vernacular as it is in the scientific vernacular. You make it sound like even less than a scientific hypothesis (which at least is testable) and more like someone's offhand "guess."

I think in a case like this, they're projecting what the case would be based on established laws. Where they are going with it is someplace unobservable, but they're building off laws that ARE observable and have been verified. This is typically how science moves -- you build off what has been established to get an idea of what you could be looking for, then look for it.

Also... "placing faith in established experts" is what we all do on a daily basis. We drive cars and fly in planes by qualified engineers. We have surgery with medical doctors. We have qualified accountants handle our taxes. Would you ever place faith in "non-established non-experts"? There's a big difference in the quotient of "faith" when you're talking about religious matters versus a proven track record and proper specialized training; anyone can believe anything they want about deity and personal values, without any qualification, but typically "experts" are challenged on a daily basis to 'put out or shut up.' If the science they generate is inaccurate, it's thrown out and they lose credibility and are no longer considered experts.

There's a sense in which we need to acknowledge that people are human and do make mistakes, and we're always learning, scientists and similar are not infallible gods; at the same time, it's certainly not a level playing field, where a guy off the street has as much credibility as a guy who has been studying a particular topic for twenty-five years or more and having to produce verifiable or credible results or lose his job and credibility.

 

[redbaron]

We can learn about these things, but we can't be completely sure they're true right now.

First, define "completely sure".

Second, who has even suggested that we can be sure they're true? Or is this like a pre-emptive statement?

There's not really any faith element either. Given time, anyone can learn to understand the mathematics presented in the study. Not to mention this hypothesis was first presented about six years ago and there's abundant information related to the concept already. The study is more of a compilation of different works in one easy to understand mathematical concept.

If you take the time to scroll to the bottom, you'll notice the study itself references more than a dozen other studies. Naturally if one reads all of them and then pieces the whole idea together mentally, there's really no faith involved at all. Anyone can reproduce all the information themselves if they want to verify its validity.

 

[Belak]

If you take the time to scroll to the bottom, you'll notice the study itself references more than a dozen other studies. Naturally if one reads all of them and then pieces the whole idea together mentally, there's really no faith involved at all. Anyone can reproduce all the information themselves if they want to verify its validity.

Define validity

By completely sure I mean that we cannot widely accept this as a scientific fact. Sure
, it has mathematics and science on its side and I'm not really against it. I'm just tire of people seeing something like this with backbone and valid sources and automatically accepting it as truth without researching it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think any of you are doing this, I'm just explaining why I, and why I think other people, should be wary.

 

[redbaron]

Validity in scientific terms means that results are reproducible, consistent with existing scientific knowledge and if something is not, then it must possess its own method of providing reproducible results through experimentation or observation.

For the sake of argument, what other things like this do people accept as "scientific fact"?

What are some examples of things that we can accept as "scientific fact"?

 

[Cæilon]

Please don't go down the spiral route of "define [random word that does not aid in the discussion]": It leads nowhere.

Next we'll be changing the term "scientific fact" to "scientific probability".

 

[Belak]

Validity in scientific terms means that results are reproducible, consistent with existing scientific knowledge and if something is not, then it must possess its own method of providing reproducible results through experimentation or observation.

For the sake of argument, what other things like this do people accept as "scientific fact"?

What are some examples of things that we can accept as "scientific fact"?

By scientific fact, I meant scientific law. So, the law of conservation of mass. Newtons laws.

I mean I'm tired of people accepting theories(no matter how credible) as scientific laws.

(A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspects of the universe)Google Definition

 

[redbaron]

You realise that the Laws of Conservation and Newton's Laws are still theories right? Everything in science is considered a theory because nothing is accepted as scientifically infallible. It goes against the whole premise of science in the first place.

There is no such thing as a "scientific law". There are theories about laws that govern our physical world but they're not laws of science. The term "theory" in science means something very different to the common usage of the word. Theory is the final step of any scientific premise. It goes from idea to hypothesis to study and if reproducible results are found - it is finally called a theory. At this point is when something can be cited for evidence for further study. For something to be called a theory in science, it must be so heavily supported empirically and in a reproducible fashion that it's practically considered a fact.

Which is why scientists shake their heads and groan every time someone says something like, "yes but relativity is just a theory!!!" Yeah, just a "theory" - the highest status any scientific hypothesis can ever reach.

It's important to distinguish between the different definitions of theory. They're as different as the difference between an aircraft plane and a geometrical plane. Spells the same and sounds the same but they're completely different.

If you want to make it easier on yourself, whenever something is called a scientific theory just interpret it as meaning scientific fact. It's good enough for discussions in layman's terms.

 

[StevenM]

I think the study needs to be 'understood' in all it's entirety, before reaching a conclusion of whether it is valid or not.

I can't make it too far in terms of an opinion or conclusion, before I put out the work of grasping the math, and reading some of the sources.

Perhaps, this paper does put forth a strong argument, yet my ignorance of it's complexities stops me from knowing what to think.

 

[Belak]

Redbaron, you asked me to give examples of scientific fact and I gave you the closest to scientific fact I could give you, then you put forth the same argument I've been putting forth the whole time to use is your argument.

We're running in circles

 

[redbaron]

No I'm pretty sure you haven't understood, since you seem to think the Law of Conservation is more robust than say, the theory of evolution.

They're both theories and both have been observed (actually there's even more evidence for evolution). Yet unless I miss my mark, you're probably going to try and tell me that it's okay to take the theory of the law of conservation as "fact" but that it's not okay to do the same with the theory of evolution - because evolution is "just a theory".

I actually hope that I'm wrong but I somehow doubt it.

 

[Belak]

No I'm pretty sure you haven't understood, since you seem to think the Law of Conservation is more robust than say, the theory of evolution.

They're both theories and both have been observed (actually there's even more evidence for evolution). Yet unless I miss my mark, you're probably going to try and tell me that it's okay to take the theory of the law of conservation as "fact" but that it's not okay to do the same with the theory of evolution - because evolution is "just a theory".

I actually hope that I'm wrong but I somehow doubt it.

When did I say anything about evolution?
I meant that conservation is something that you can experience firsthand, by measuring things repeatedly before and after chemical reactions and changes of state.
If we're on evolution, unless you invent a time machine, you cannot produce tangible evidence that isn't information provided by archeologists and scientists that you can experience first hand. (By evolution, I don't mean little evolution, I mean species to different species.

 

[redbaron]

Can we accept black holes as being factual for the purpose of discussion?

 

[Belak]

Clueless as suspected. We're done here.

Fine, you can dismiss me as clueless, I really don't care what you think about it, I'm just asking you to consider what I was saying.

Maybe I was using you as a soundboard for my ideas(classic INTP), so thank you

 

[redbaron]

You do realise the only difference between "little evolution" and "big evolution" is time scale right?

And no, you don't need a time machine to find tangible evidence any more than you need to directly observe a black hole to have tangible evidence of its existence.

 

[Cæilon]

The problem with mathematical proof is that you can mathematically prove that 0.999... = 1 and that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +... = -1/12.

 

[Absurdity]

This thread has gone from "way over my head" to "shit I learned in middle school."

 

[redbaron]

Yeah it's pretty sad that people so regularly fail to understand middle school level science.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have read the paper. I perceive it to be gibberish.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The problem with mathematical proof is that you can mathematically prove that 0.999... = 1 and that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +... = -1/12.

Lol, infinite decimal places and infinite sums are quite logical. There is nothing incorrect or absurd about them. And your second infinite sum = infinity, and you probably meant another one:

This one 1-2+3-4+5-6... would be 1/4

Stop toying with mathematical woo please.
It's all been proven and explained.

 

[Cæilon]

Lol, infinite decimal places and infinite sums are quite logical. There is nothing incorrect or absurd about them. And your second infinite sum = infinity, and you probably meant another one:

This one 1-2+3-4+5-6... would be -1/2

Stop toying with mathematical woo please.
It's all been proven and explained.

No, I meant exactly what I typed and my second equation is correct.

Furthermore, you missed the point I was making.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

No, I meant exactly what I typed and my second equation is correct.

Furthermore, you missed the point I was making.

K, we were both incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯

Math wee strikes back. Explain your point so that we don't scare people with pointless math.

 

[Cæilon]

Mathematical proof does not mean it's real.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Mathematical proof does not mean it's real.

What is real for you. Who says that any theory was real just by having maths and theory behind it?
I wanted to say that math makes sense and is indicative of the potential for further valuable scientific inquiry.

 

[Cæilon]

What is real for you. Who says that any theory was real just by having maths and theory behind it?
I wanted to say that math makes sense and is indicative of the potential for further valuable scientific inquiry.

I hate having these debates because they just resort to boring definition spirals (which I mentioned in my first post).

Mathematical proof is purely theoretical. There are no ways to actually validate some of them.

 

[OrLevitate]

You know, some of you ought to know about the recent archaeological discoveries popping up around the world. I thought people knew, but there's what they're calling the Penultimate Rosetta Stone of Humanity. Idk about it, sounds grandiose, but here's some of what was written on vases, statues and such, usually in temples (in ancient Sumeria, Japan, Indonesia, India, and around Machu Pichu):

కారణము ఊహ ఒక ఉత్పత్తి మరియు దాని బలము వ్యక్తిత్వం మరియు వేర్పాటుదనాన్ని భ్రమ.

మేము తప్పు వంటి మేము అన్ని చాలా ఉన్నాము.
"The reason is a product of the imagination and the strength of personality and
the illusion of separateness. We're all very much like we were wrong."

Ratio est ex falsa imaginatione, ac ipsa et separatio impetus

Lorem iure omnes fallimur.
The reason is from a false imagination, and the very and the separation of the
impulse of the[] [Lorem] all deceived by law.

हामी भावना छ, यो एक आशिष् वा सराप हो?
We sense, this is a blessing or a curse?

तिनीहरू चाहन्छन्। उहाँले चाहनुहुन्छ हामी सबै चाहनुहुन्छ। उहाँले थाहा थिएन। उहाँले तिनीहरू। चाहन्छ।
They want to. He wants all of us he wants. He would not know. He, that, they. Wants.

 

[Anktark]

Basically attempts to prove mathematically that the quantum potential of a virtual particle within vacuum is infinite, thereby allowing for exponential expansion from a single point (bubble).

So all is not one. It's zero.

I tried to imagine this event. A point expanding (or maybe getting more detailed and stretching inside since there is no frame of reference) and creating spacetime (like light creating a medium through witch it travels). I failed at this task. Afterwards my imagination created:

Old looking hippie dude: Ohfrfucksake, I looked away for 2 minutes and.. *sigh* Ok, who touched this singularity?!


But really though, did the infinite potential triggered itself?

 

[redbaron]

So all is not one. It's zero.

I tried to imagine this event. A point expanding (or maybe getting more detailed and stretching inside since there is no frame of reference) and creating spacetime (like light creating a medium through witch it travels). I failed at this task. Afterwards my imagination created:

Old looking hippie dude: Ohfrfucksake, I looked away for 2 minutes and.. *sigh* Ok, who touched this singularity?!

It is, unfortunately, the sort of thing that the human mind seems to have difficulty grasping.

But really though, did the infinite potential triggered itself?

The idea is that it's the (figuratively) inevitable result of applying Quantum Mechanics to any vacuum state. There's infinite possibility, including the possibility of creation of a universe as we see it today. It basically asserts that, "nothing" is capable of creating "something". Something includes but isn't limited to the universe we see today.

As of yet there's nothing we know of that specifically prevents the possibility of spontaneous creation. Indeed much of what is known actually supports the concept of spontaneous creation from a singularity. Stephen Hawking theorised about and built on that idea to a great extent. This is like a spin-off idea, except that it actually provides some further inkling as to how we get the universe we see today.

Still needs more evidence and fleshing out but as of yet it doesn't seem to contradict any of the current knowledge. So it's at least plausible, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of ideas about our creation.

 

[StevenM]

Something I thought of. Or imagined.

If a 'vacuum' is completely void of anything, including spaceand time:

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that something had to happen. Because without any construct of time, the vacuum just couldn't 'be'. The vacuum couldn't exist for even 10 sec, or 1 sec, not even a fraction of a second. The vacuum existed completely void of time, for absolutely 0 seconds.

So if anything were to 'happen', even if the probability of that happening was almost next to nil, that happening would certainly take place immediately after that vacuum came to be in the first place.

What if the odds of something 'happening' were absolute zero as well? Then how could a vacuum 'sit' in it's place infinitely without any construct of space or even time?

Not sure if anyone understands what I'm getting at, or if I'm missing something....

EDIT:
argh, another thought:
'nothingness' could actually 'be' all around us. That 'space' from one point to another. If you were to take your thumb and index finger and space them 1cm apart, you have 1cm of space, and some unit of time. Close them in at 1mm, or 1um, 1pm, smaller and smaller, and you still have some space and some unit of time. Space them to the math function floor(0), and even if that may be the smallest you are ever going to go, not in the micro, or even the quantum realm.

Completely close the gap, and you have your nothingness. Zero space, zero time. Nothing.


If this vacuum, or 'nothingness' was indeed all around us, and it spontaneously expanded and created 'something', would that explain why the universe is expanding, and could it have something to do with how 'space-time' operates?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I understand it, makes sense to me. But I'm not very knowledgeable about these things :P

 

[7even]

Scientists attempting to find a non-existent God equation. Science is simply a model used in order to interpret the objective world; it is bound by parameters, just as our minds from which the model was constructed, is. Only a fool would interpret it as a potential source for uncovering an absolute truth.

Intelligence is a [measurable] quality of nature whose function is primarily to increase survival odds. A tool which interprets phenomenon, differences by analyzing patterns... Not a tool which encapsulates all phenomenon into a singular equation. It is not a magical quality which springs in order to devour, negate itself and the universe from which it developed from.

Where there are no patterns, the human mind ceases to be of any use, therein lies mystery [or what some would label as 'nothing' in an attempt to abstract it into some-thing]. These scientists are creating deluded abstractions for what they intrinsically cannot conceive of. There are no patterns in disorder, disorder exists, it cannot be measured. They hold the self-contradictory superstition that the universe is one colossal ordered system.

The notion of finding an equation which encompasses space/time in its totality is absurd. It goes against the very nature of space/time i.e. its change [entropy], multiplicity, shifting probabilities/possibilities. The universe is not a fixed object, we can attest to this based on observation, the very possibility of it being so would destroy it.

What happens when this hypothetical fixed, starting point is potential is fulfilled?

Such ideas are synonymous to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief in a Beginning and End.